The Bell, Rogers and Videotron alike went after where the money is : those who sell the boxes made profits. The expansions are generally a collection of a bunch of links but doesn't mean the 'illegal' live streams originate from the collector. The software was designed for normal usage and 3rd party expansion. What's the strategy here for the copyright owner ? Going after every single one who watched at least 1 second of the live stream ? Make the live stream shutdown and archive deleted and block the user ? Going after the platform (YT, FB) for advertising and allowing live-streaming to happen (which is where the money is) ? Going after the coder who made this possible ? In 2017, anyone can start live streaming on Youtube, Facebook and Twitter, and inevitably, anyone can place their live-streaming tablet in front of a TV and do something for the audio. If piracy did anything good it's allowed people to get some more fresh air instead of waiting for their shown to be aired at a time convenient for the broadcaster.

People are starting to realize how much money they've been wasting on channels they don't watch - especially sports. I honestly think it's too late for the content providers to make a significant come back. I can scan a print book or print an ebook for my own use. They can go fuck off!īooks are a great analogy. I'm not paying apple $5 to own a movie and then another $5 to buy it again for my android and $5 again for windows devices. If DRM wasn't such a pain in the ass people would buy more legit content.ĭRM interoperability still blows even today. They go after the counter-fitters who make the bills, not the people who unknowingly use them.

I don't know why it's so hard for the government to understand this concept. There's no way for you to know it's real or counterfeit until you try and use it and it gets scanned. You can't be charged for simply picking up a $20 off the ground.

How to use kodi legally